VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00638
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00638
Petitioner: Tasha Allen
Filed: 2021-01-12
Decided: 2023-09-13
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2018-09-16
Condition: Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine Administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Tasha Allen filed a petition on January 12, 2021, alleging she suffered a shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA) from an influenza vaccine received on September 16, 2018. She did not initially file supporting documents. An order issued on February 5, 2021, required her to submit medical records and other documentation. Petitioner's counsel filed some records and a status report on March 14, 2022, indicating that she no longer believed a presumptive Table SIRVA injury could be established and was awaiting authorization to withdraw the claim. On July 11, 2022, counsel reported being unable to contact Petitioner for over four months, preventing withdrawal authorization. An Order to Show Cause was issued on August 2, 2022, warning of dismissal for failure to prosecute. Despite confirmation of delivery of the order to Petitioner, no response was filed. The case was dismissed on September 13, 2023, for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00638-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-09-13
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 8/16/2023) regarding 16 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (abs) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00638-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/13/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-638V
UNPUBLISHED
TASHA ALLEN, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 16, 2023
v.
Show cause; failure to prosecute;
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND influenza (flu) vaccine; Shoulder
HUMAN SERVICES, Injury Related to Vaccine
Administration (SIRVA)
Respondent.
Leigh Finfer, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Heather L. Pearlman, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 12, 2021, Tasha Allen filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 342
(the “Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleged that she suffered a shoulder injury related to
vaccine administration from an influenza vaccine she received on September 16, 2018.
ECF No. 1. Petitioner did not file any supporting documents with her petition. Petitioner
did not file any supporting documents with her petition. Due to Petitioner’s failure to
prosecute her claim, this case is DISMISSED.
Relevant Procedural History
On February 5, 2021, the PAR Initial Order issued requiring Petitioner to file
medical records and other statutorily required supporting documentation. ECF No. 5.
On March 14, 2022, Petitioner filed some medical records, a Statement of
Completion, and a status report. ECF Nos. 10-12. In the status report, Petitioner’s
counsel advised that she “no longer feels as though Petitioner can establish a
presumptive Table SIRVA injury. Counsel is awaiting return of written authorization to
take the necessary steps to withdraw Petitioner’s claim.” ECF No. 12.
1 Because this Decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government
Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Decision will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In
accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other
information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I
agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter,
for ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of
42 U.S.C. § 300aa (2012).

Case 1:21-vv-00638-UNJ Document 20 Filed 09/13/23 Page 2 of 2
On July 11, 2022, Petitioner’s counsel filed a status report indicating that ‘[d]ue to
an inability to meet the severity requirement, Petitioner must withdraw her claim.
Despite numerous attempts via telephone and certified mail, Petitioner’s counsel has
had no contact with Petitioner for over four (4) months and is therefore unable to obtain
written permission to withdraw the claim.” ECF No. 13.
On August 2, 2022, I issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not
be dismissed for failure to prosecute. ECF No. 14. On August 23, 2022, counsel filed a
document indicating that the Order to Show Cause had been sent to Petitioner by
certified mail. ECF No. 15. The tracking number provided in the document revealed that
the package had been delivered. The show cause deadline passed without any
response from Petitioner.
Grounds for Dismissal
It is a petitioner’s obligation to follow and respond to orders issued by a special
master in a case. The failure to do so – whether on account of attorney error, inaction,
or because a petitioner has failed to stay in contact and/or communicate with counsel -
is grounds for the claim’s dismissal. Padmanabhan v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
638 Fed. App’x 1013 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Tsekouras v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs.,
26 Cl. Ct. 439 (1992), aff’d, 991 F.2d 810 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (per curiam), (“[c]ontrolling
precedent considers dismissal appropriate when failure to act is deemed willful, when it
is in violation of court orders, when it is repeated, and when clear warning is given that
the sanction will be imposed”); Sapharas v. Sec’y of Health & Human Servs., 35 Fed.
Cl. 503 (1996) (“[n]ot only did petitioner fail to meet the court's . . . . deadline, but he
also ignored the chief special master's ‘warning’ order, clearly placing petitioner on
notice that failure to respond to the court's order . . . , would result in dismissal of the
claim. The chief special master clearly did not abuse his discretion in dismissing this
case for failure to prosecute”); see also Vaccine Rule 21(b) (“[t]he special master or the
court may dismiss a petition or any claim therein for failure of the petitioner to prosecute
or comply with these rules or any order of the special master or the court.”).
Petitioner was specifically advised in the August 2, 2022 Order to Show Cause
that failure to follow orders issued in this matter (and failure to communicate with her
counsel which prevents compliance with those order) risked dismissal of the claim. As
noted in the response to the Order to Show Cause, Petitioner has been out-of-touch
with her counsel since March 2022. Because Petitioner has continued to disregard my
orders, without justification or explanation, dismissal is now appropriate.
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. The clerk
shall enter judgment accordingly.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 If Petitioner wishes to bring a civil action, he must file a notice of election rejecting the judgment
pursuant to § 21(a) “not later than 90 days after the date of the court’s final judgment.”
2